JUDGMENT

1. This is a plaintiff's appeal under Section 12(2), Oudh Courts Act from an appellate decree of a learned Single Judge of this Court in a second rent appeal. The plaintiff-appellant brought a suit for recovery of Rs. 937-9-0 under Section 108(2), Oudh Rent Act for arrears of rent for 1339 to 1341 fasli against the defendants-respondents. It may be noted that the plaintiff allowed a remission to the defendants for the years in suit to the extent of the remission made in the land revenue in her favour. The trial Court allowed remissions in the rent to the defendants to the extent of Rs. 689-5-9, which was double the amount of revenue remitted to the plaintiff. The trial Court was of opinion that such remissions were allowable to the defendants under Section 19-A, Oudh Rent Act.

2. On an appeal by the plaintiff the learned District Judge took the view that Section 19-A, Oudh Rent Act had no application in the case of the defendants, who were admitted before him to carry the status of under-proprietors. He raised the amount of the decree by a sum of Rs. 317-4-9 on the view that under the terms of the perpetual lease (Ex. A-1), the title deed of the defendants, remission only to the extent of the remission in revenue could be allowed. In second appeal, which came on before a Single Judge of this Court, it was held that although Section 19-A was not applicable, yet the defendants-respondents were entitled to an appropriate reduction in their rent under Section 19(1), Oudh Rent Act. A reduction in rent was therefore allowed to the defendants at the rate of 11/2 times the remission allowed by the Government in the land revenue plus cesses calculated according to Section 8, Local Rates Act. There were other points in contest between the parties but we are no longer concerned with them in this appeal.

3. The only point which has been taken in this appeal is that Section 19(1), Oudh Rent Act has no application to the present case. A faint attempt was made on behalf of the appellant to urge that the status of the defendants-respondents was not that of under proprietors and that they were mere thekadars as recorded in the khewat. Prom the judgment of the learned District Judge it is clear that it was the appellant's own case that the respondents were under proprietors and we find that the decision of the learned District Judge as well as the decision in Second Rent Appeal No. 23 of 1935 in this Court proceeded on that footing. It is too late for the appellant to raise this question now and we disallow it. As regards the chief point in controversy in this appeal, the learned Counsel for the appellant has urged that Section 19(1) is not applicable, that that Section applies only when there has been a diminution in the area of the land in the occupation of the under-proprietor by diluvion or otherwise, or if the produce of that land has been diminished by drought, hail, or other calamity beyond his control. It is further contended that no remission from the rent payable can be allowed by a Court unless previous sanction of the Deputy Commissioner has been obtained. Section 19(1), Oudh Rent Act reads as follows:

Notwithstanding anything in the last foregoing Section, a Court when it makes a decree for an arrear of rent, may, with the previous sanction of the Deputy Commissioner, allow such remission from the rent payable by any under proprietor or tenant as appears equitable, if the area of the land in his occupation has been materially diminished by diluvion or otherwise, or if the produce of that land has been diminished by drought, hail, or other calamity beyond his control, to such an extent that the full amount of rent payable by him cannot, in the opinion of the Court, be paid.

4. On a perusal of the record of the present case it appears that the defendants claimed remission on account of slump in prices, which slump was due to abundance in produce of the land, and so it is clear that the case does not fall within the clause rep